RAID

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

mbetea

Distinguished
Aug 16, 2001
1,662
0
19,780
0
most people are using raid0 for the transfer gain. 4 drives will give you the highest transfer rate! why are you looking at the fasttrak66? so having a minimum transfer rate of around 58mb/s is worse than having a maximum transfer rate of 48mb/s? that's like saying, no i won't upgrade from a 1ghz cpu to a 2ghz cpu because it's not 100% gain.

Windows XP cd makes a great coaster :smile:
 

mbetea

Distinguished
Aug 16, 2001
1,662
0
19,780
0
excuse me?
why be an ass? you asked a question which was:
THG speaks about 2 HDs for best RAID0 perfs.

the best you have is with 3 HDs ?
which i answered, if you wanted ratios you should've asked your question better. best in most people's minds is speed, not a ratio. if ratio was the biggest concern, we would all be on 1ghz cpus with a single hdd and there would be no dual cpu or raid setups.



Windows XP cd makes a great coaster :smile:
 

labdog

Distinguished
Feb 17, 2001
2,747
0
20,780
0
maybe <i>most people</i> don't want to waste their bucks ?


no offense.
just an opinion.


<i>note:
thanks for the "Ass" :)</i>

|
v

if you know you don't know, the way could be more easy.
 

Matisaro

Splendid
Mar 23, 2001
6,737
0
25,780
0
A:labdog didnt mean to attack you, his post was not negative IMO.



B: everyone having discussions in this thread, via/raid etc, lets try to tone it down, Even my own posts have taken on an angry tone, I apologize for that.

Lets keep it friendly!


Secondly.

ON ata100, 3 raid drives offers the best value/performance, simply because in raid0 no space is wasted, it does not hurt at all to buy a third drive IMO>

4 drives however hit the bandwith limit thus some is wasted.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
 

kief

Distinguished
Aug 27, 2001
709
0
18,980
0
No, just one as thats all I need at the moment. I have other machines on the network do background dirty work =)

Jesus saves, but Mario scores!!!
 
How have I wasted my bucks?

As I said above, my scores are off the scale. No-one else with an IDE array has posted with faster scores yet. I said <b>yet</b>, in case people think I'm getting cocky. :smile:

My cousin's system beats me in all things...except HDD stuff. Same drive, but I have two in RAID 0. I have double the space he has and extra speed, so I fail to see the waste.

:cool: <b><font color=blue>The Cisco Kid</font color=blue></b> :cool:
 

kief

Distinguished
Aug 27, 2001
709
0
18,980
0
Thing about raid 0 is if one drive they all die so its harsh to have 3 or 4 lose all the data. raid 5 is good for that buy you lose the use of one drive and it writes a little slower then raid 0. Read is real fast though =)

Jesus saves, but Mario scores!!!
 

labdog

Distinguished
Feb 17, 2001
2,747
0
20,780
0
sorry, the discussion IMO is:

in keeping in mind the best performance/price ratio,
the best disks number for RAID0 is it:

a) 2.
b) 3.
c) 4.


moreover, another aspect about raid0 is "RAID0 IDE vs RAID0 SCSI"


<i>
note:
but maybe my question is a "foolish" one.</i>



if you know you don't know, the way could be more easy.
 

peteb

Distinguished
Feb 14, 2001
2,584
0
20,780
0
HDTACH sucks - they want $50 bucks to run on NT/2000? Jeez - they can keep it. If I'm going to pay $50, they could at least write a decent gui for it...

-* <font color=red> !! S O L D !! </font color=red> *-
To the gentleman in the pink Tutu
 

Ncogneto

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,283
15
19,785
0
pm me for the hmm.... workaround? but HDD tach does suck as dos sandra. Try atto or winbench.

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!
 

Ncogneto

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,283
15
19,785
0
Labdog

I am not sure but I am going to take a stab at this. I think the issue at hand is that a normal IDE RAID controller has just two channels. Thus it is better suited to having just two drives for price/performance. However, if you get a 4 channel controller than things could be a bit different. This has alot to do with connectivety issues with IDE, something that is not a big of issue with SCSI.

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!
 

kief

Distinguished
Aug 27, 2001
709
0
18,980
0
Also remember that SCSI can communicate with multiple devices at the same time so it can use the available 160 meg/sec better....

Jesus saves, but Mario scores!!!
 

Ncogneto

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,283
15
19,785
0
Yes that is what I was getting at. SCSI can have up to 15 devices on a chain...Fibre can have up to 125.

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!
 

Matisaro

Splendid
Mar 23, 2001
6,737
0
25,780
0
Ncog, even a 2 channel raid controler offers performance benifits with 3 or 4 drives, the ata100 controler offeres 100mb/sec bandwith, the fastest ide drives out today hit about 50mb/sec AT BEST, thus 2 drives on 1 channel will rarely if ever max out the ata100's bandwidth.

No need to spend extra for a 4 channel array IMO.




"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
 

Ncogneto

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,283
15
19,785
0
I did not say it wouldn't work. However it just doesn't work as well as one might expect. This is easily explained. For instance lets say you have three identical drives all with a maximum transfer rate of 30 mb/s. Now if you add two drives to the controller and stripe them in raid 0, just for sake of argument lets say you get now a transfer of 60 mb/s ( this is never going to happen be more like 45-50 mb/s). From this one might expect that by adding a third drive to the stripe that he/she would achieve an additional 30 mb/s thus getting a transfer of 90 mb/s on a three drive stripe. This just won't happen because you are now tring to access data of one cable from two drives and one contoller which slows down the process. this is somewhat like the reason why you really need to have your cd-rw drive and cd rom drive on seperate controllers when you try to copy cd's from disk to disk without first storing to your HDD. You will get a small performance increase adding the third drive, but it will not add as much as you might expect. Thisis the reason TOm pointed out for best price/performance a two drive stripe is better.

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!
 

kief

Distinguished
Aug 27, 2001
709
0
18,980
0
Or if you are using SCSI cuz the SCSI cable/controller can communicate with 2 drives at the same time!

Jesus saves, but Mario scores!!!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS